Noam Chomsky's 2006 "analysis" of US government 9/11 complicity is being promoted by Alternet.org as if it was news. That's because Chomsky basically sides with the editors there and their dismissive attitudes toward looking at the evidence.

In this battle of ideas, it warms my heart that Alternet's boards are swamped with controversy the minute they try to push this garbage onto the unsuspecting.

I remain a bit dazed though that hard core "leftists" accept Chomsky's thin dismissal, and ignore the most important admission Chomsky has made:

Quote:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky

If you aren't familiar with this quote, read it again. Play the linked video. Come to terms with what he is saying. Chomsky gives the same dismissal to the JFK assassination (at the end of the clip). It just doesn't matter. To whom? Noam? To whom?I suppose one could argue that JFK is dead 44 years now, and so America has moved on.* Not so for 9/11. Not on your life.

Chomsky has admitted that HE doesn't care if elements of the government were criminally complicit and treasonous in the 9/11 attacks, and that his school of followers shouldn't (doesn't) concern themselves either.

That's quite powerful stuff, given that many "lefty" pinhead types have internalized the marching orders and come up with elaborate mental gymnastics to convince themselves that 9/11 is "irrelevant." You see the "irrelevant" dismissal repeated in the threads over at that video post.

Example, "fireballs" says:

Quote:

"9/11 truthers, you might be right in some form. There might be enough logical inconsistencies in the media's narrative of that day to produce some amount of scepticism. All of that is irrelevant. It does not matter if the towers fell due to controlled demolition. It does not matter what caused the collapse of WTC 7. It does not matter because you cannot prove what did happen, and the government is not going to help you, no matter how loud you shout outside of its doors."

You really have to wonder the mindset that admits the government could have participated in the mass murder of our fellow civilians, and yet works overtime trying to dismiss it as "irrelevant."

Well obviously it's not "irrelevant" to us, nor to the family members affected by it, nor to a hell of a lot of people around the world. That it is apparently "irrelevant" to Noam Chomsky and his dwindling band of followers speaks volumes about their priorities, as well as their morality, or apparent lack thereof. Perhaps it is they who are "irrelevant?"

Treason does not matter to these people.

So many derelictions of duty before 9/11 point to high treason (in the Clinton and Bush regimes), deliberate, calculated, with historical precedents and whistleblowers exposing the reality. None of that can sway the Chomskyites, because their leader seems to have some charismatic cult of personality hold on their ability to reason these things through.

Another one, "abstractedaway" says:

Quote:

"The 9/11 truth movement assumes that there must have been a massive conspiracy, in my opinion, because it does not understand the ramifications of the huge disparity of wealth and power in our country."

It all comes back to the Marxist critique of everything, not the actual evidence of the case. These types always put cart before horse. The 9/11 movement has waded through thousands and thousands of pages of evidence to find things that don't appear right, were covered up, lied about AND EXPOSED AS LIES, and are downright incriminating. I don't know of anyone who pretends to know exactly what happened. What we are pretty sure about is that it shouldn't have happened. In this context, we seem to be the only ones demanding accountability from an out of control illegitimate regime, while Chomsky et al. are fabricating excuses for said regime.

This one, "samco" has the audacity to proclaim:

Quote:

"9/11 Truthers are no different that (sic) White Supremacists. For their own sad psychological reasons, Truthers have bought into an ideology that, in order to be true, requires the complete dehumanization of a group of people [Bush et al.]."

The indoctrinated "left" have bought a (questionable) ideology. I'm a hard core skeptic of the government's numerous lies and cover ups with some actual education about the government's numerous crimes throughout history. It's quite a difference, no?

The Bushites/Democrat elite have murdered about 1.2 million Iraqi civilians since 2003. So how come we're only "dehumanizing" them as monsters if we add on another 3,000 Americans? Yet I'm supposed to be the white supremacist in this equation? Go look up "Freudian slip," samco.

Their group reveals a generalized aversion to look at the facts. Chomsky is famous for his "institutional analysis" that just ignores individual actions and actors, in favor of glossing over and generalizing whenever that is more convenient. His posse at Alternet similarly resorts to anti-intellectual dismissal tactics in order to avoid very straightforward evidence.

The infamous Joshua Holland (Alternet editor and writer of hit pieces against the 9/11 Truth Movement) got in a half-hearted sniping at me just as the comments were "closed."

Chomsky said:

Quote:

"It's almost certain that it woud have leaked."

"So something would have leaked out, very likely."

To which I responded:

Quote:

"Chomsky has nothing to say about Sibel Edmonds, Richard Wright, or any of the other whistleblowers, up to and including Senator Bob Graham ("foreign governments assisted the hijackers") and Senator Max Cleland ("not going to be part of another warren commission").

It did leak. It was known ..."

Holland cuts off the rest of my quote in his response, of course, which said:

Quote:

"It was known by many people before the fact. High level pentagon oficials cancelled travel plans on 9/10. The mayor of San Francisco was warned not to fly. Many other leaks are known if you bother to look."

Then, Joshua Holland comes to Chomsky's defense:

Quote:

"That depends entirely on what "it" is in the sentence. If you are claiming that these people said "it" was an inside job, you are incorrect. Yet an inside job is what Chomsky's talking about in the clip."

Hmm. The question read to Noam Chomsky at the beginning of the video clip:

Quote:

"(9/11 attacks) ...directly or indirectly Bush clan is behind this?"

Strike one, Holland.

Chomsky himself says:

Quote:

"Did they plan it in any way or know anything about it?"

Strike two, Holland.

And the term "inside job", with whatever fantastical connotations are in Joshua Holland's mind, is not spoken in this video clip at all.

Strike three, Holland. You're out. Thanks for playing.

But, hey, Joshua Holland has also tried to spin both Sibel Edmonds and FBI Special Agent Robert Wright.

Here's what FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said:

Quote:

“If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences." -Sibel Edmonds Letter To Thomas Kean, August 1, 2004

That is an open accusation of conspiracy. Numerous conspiracies! Directly related to "terrorist activities!"

Could someone forward this over to Noam for me? Hey Joshua, what about you? Gonna Fedex these facts right over, or continue spinning?

FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, has said:

Quote:

“Corruption is knowing when something is not being done, knowing when the American people are being left unprotected and when you make a decision not to do something to protect the American people... And you effectively allow 9/11 to occur. That is the ultimate form of government corruption—dereliction of duty. That’s subject in the military to prosecution, to court martial.... Frankly, if not treason.” --Robert Wright, Press Conference, Federal News Service, 5/30/2002, CooperativeResearch

Holland (and Chomsky) also seems to have no problem with Senator Bob Graham's admission about "foreign governments" ... plural.

If foreign governments are getting away with mass murder on US soil, I think a majority of Americans will not only want to know about it (although they won't hear about it from Alternet or Noam Chomsky), but they will immediately want to throw out the bums -- every traitorous stinking last one of them -- who are protecting these "foreign governments."

The governments in question are clearly not on the "enemies" list, or else such information would quickly have been plastered all over the world's press as justificaiton for the serial wars that were planned long before 9/11/01. Yes they were planned in places like the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for a New American Century, and in Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard.

So the "foreign governments" assisting the alleged hijackers are "allies." Allies who crash planes into NY skyscrapers. Allies who are protected AFTER they crash planes into NY skyscrapers.

We are so through-the-looking-glass here, people, that the only sensible response to this towering wall of propaganda and disinformation is to look for the covert control of the "alternate" media and to question the credibility of the "alternate" icons like Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others in positions of editorial control and influence.

Quote:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyyone of any significance in the major media." --Former CIA director William Colby (quote apparently purged recently from Wikipedia)

You can tell very easily who is concerned with the truth, and who is not by examining the targets of their ire. Those whose fixation is "conspiracy theorists" or the "9/11 Truth Movement" are not interested in knowing. They are simply turning focus and attention onto a generalized movement, which allows them to cherry pick claims and ideas to "debunk." They make quite a sport of this, and have done so for a while.

There are ideological reasons for doing this -- all the while ignoring the evidence related to 9/11 -- and they are being misled, clearly from "above." The "Left Gatekeepers" have done a tremendous amount of work keeping the focus on amateur investigators and whatever mistakes they have made, as well as the deliberate COINTELPRO originated disinformation "theories."

In the process, these Gatekeepers have given the treasonous faction in charge a free pass. Why would they do this? Why would they not want to hold the regime accountable for the atrocities of 9/11? That's a very fair question.

A number of Chomskyites admit that the Bush regime is negligent, and that there was "malfeasance" and other lighter charges. They omit the part about criminal negligence, with 3,000 homicides in the balance (and two illegal wars as a consequence). I don't know what they're putting in the bottled water over in Chomskyland, but I see a problem here.

* P.S.

Kennedy's death didn't matter? Perhaps it did to 58,000 US troops and 3,000,000 Vietnamese citizens.

We had Kennedy retreating from a belligerent foreign policy after the Cuban Missile Crisis sent the world to the brink of nuclear war. Kennedy was proclaimed "soft on communism" when he made a deal with the Soviets to avoid Armageddon. JFK subsequently refused to invade Cuba, or to support the CIA's rogue Bay of Pigs invasion with US air power.

Kennedy was at war with the CIA when he fired Allan Dulles as CIA head shortly before his assassination.

Dulles for some reason ended up on the Warren Commission "investigation" that brought us the magical bullet of Lee Harvey Oswald. But none of that matters, ...says Chomsky.

What say you followers?

Not a one of them had the gumption to answer my question:

Quote:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance."

"Is there anyone in their right frame of mind who agrees with the above quote?"

No takers. Just wise cracks about "conspiracy whackoness." Real intellectual giants over there in Alter-Chomsky universe.

Quote:

"It is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life." -Gore Vidal, The Enemy Within

Well done JD. These media whores are pimped out by their masters and the CIA is the king of the pimpers paradise. Bought and sold traitors.

Have you checked out JB's scathing attack on the progressives and Thom (NO)Hartmann? Who can be trusted these days when you are an extremist, zionist or elitist able to buy or bludgeon your way through this miasma, while shaping and mapping out history at the same?

Chomsky is riding on his past now and this gives him his credibility. When the right starts singing his praise, we will know his true intentions- to decieve.

The things one learns if one stays awake and aware long enough, with of course, an unbiased source of information. What are Chomsky's biases? We are learning them slowly as his semantics lets them out-gradually- his guilty side must speak out, even if it is his subconscous slips, like the one you pointed out. (With a quote like this in his repertoire, he's definitely not in his left mind- It appears more like a right turn to me!)

Quote:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky

That quote speaks volumes about the man and his mind- where he hangs his final thoughts. That dark self we try so hard to hide.

These anti-semites are all the same- all for Usreal and Usreal for all.

_________________Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind

I received an email a several years ago that supposedly was sent from Chomsky himslef. I did not know who he was the time and never opened the email.

Had I known whom Chomsky was, I likely still would not have believed it.

I consider Ted Kennedy losing two brothers under highly suspicious circumstance then cozying up to Bush in order to legalize illegal aliens. (This got vetoed primarily by Republicans for what that is worth.) That makes Chomsky's admission look pretty light in comparison in my opinion. But lack of moral fortitude in Ted does not surprise many.

What shall happen to our precious 9/11 truth movement? It might be dealt a death blow if they ever decided to release the actual video footage that was immediately confiscated from the Sheraton, the convenience store, the highway close to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon footage itself. Assuming the video proved what they said was true.

The fact that the video was confiscated speaks volumes to others.

As for me, I have seen at least two dozen things that are proof enough that 9/11 was 'contrived at best'.

I tend to not respect the intellect of those who harbor no doubts about 9/11. They never cared enough to investigate in my experience.

Then you have thousands of agents prowling the net and doing their best to 'club' all of the truthers. This actually works on the exceptionally meek.

To say that 9/11 does not matter is to say that truth and ethics and life and justice do not matter. The philosophy of the morally bankrupt.

Despite his respected reputation for documenting, dissecting and exposing the hypocrisy of the US and European regimes and acutely analyzing the intellectual deceptions of imperial apologists, these analytical virtues are totally absent when it comes to discussing the formulation of US foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly the role of his own ethnic group, the Jewish Pro-Israel lobby and their Zionist supporters in the government.

_________________It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. - Henry Ford

It is irrelevant just like he says. It is irrelevant because there is nothing you can do about it anyway except run off at the mouth, and that is not getting anything done at all.

I mean, this society cannot even hold local law enforcement to accountability for allowing 9-11 to proceed, but they think they can hold Washingtom cabals to it. Yeah right people. Keep dreaming. You better clean up your own back yards bfore you start going after the big boys.

Really? Where's your proof? WHO did you tell? Come on, name ONE person, or two, or ten! If you told "plenty of people, " you should have no trouble "naming names."

Are you one of those very strange people who calls the police station and confesses to every crime that makes the local news? Perhaps you've changed your modus operandi...now you get online and go to discussion boards and make your unsubstantiated claims! AND you say you work for the military, too...in the Middle East!

Which military? Which country in the ME? Know what I think? I think you're sitting in a high school library, pecking away with your imagination going at warp speed.

As a small child, my son used to brag that he was going outside to slay a dragon. I never did see any evidence of such a feat, although he insisted that he had done so!

It's easy to come onto a discussion board and brag about having some kind of inside knowledge about a crime that has been committed against a nation or a person. But it's also very dangerous, so I really am not impressed with your reckless and irresponsible behavior.

_________________

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help. That other party, they work for people who don't need help. That's all there is to it."~Harry S. Truman

This is an importatant point by J.D. I think that the left gatekeeping is now even more pronounced than it was at the time of his original post.

It is on these sites that the gatekeepers create theirfalse dichotomies between structuralism and "conspiracy theory" I am in another battle over on Revleft if anyone cares to chime in.

It is not "only about 9/11" -?_ but also about whether or not the gatekeepers will be able to conitinue to have their basic narration of history remain uncontested simply by saying the words conspiracy theory.

_________________The Kennedy Assassination is not about Kennedy
Many aspects of Cold War history run through it.
There is a good reason its become a "word" almost like "Oliver Stone"

Interesting to see Chomsky siding with the establishment after building a career pointing at the shortcomings.

To say that 9/11 does not matter? I have at least one Chomsky book that shall never have a page creased.

Pueblo certainly did his share of baiting from what little I seen. Seems to be common of new posters.

As for me, I spent a few years poking around with 9/11 with my spare time. I have lost interest and commend those who press on for the truth and a real investigation.

Not that 9/11 is not of intrigue anymore, it is that there are dozens of other fascinating subjects worth exploring.

I am currently commending the power elite for an amazing job of overhauling the American intellect into something they find more manageable and malleable. They have a lot in their wheel barrow as they sprint towards the goal. Can they cross without spilling everything?

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm not so ready to attack Noam Chomsky and I'll tell you why. His statement is not what it appears to be.

Quote:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky

This is a semioticians dream and extremely clever. It was supposed to cause the reaction it did and while it appears to appease the shadowy figures who must be 'making offers he can't refuse' it opens the door to the opposite of what he is saying.

He calls it 'extremely unlikely'. He doesn't call it 'impossible', 'laughable' or 'ridiculous' and anything of such seriousness demands further investigation because we all know that the 'extremely unlikely' does happen and is possible.

But then comes the really clever bit: he challenges us... Who cares? Does he mean 'whatever' as the current idiom implies or is he actually asking us if we care? He then covers himself and guarantees he'll be quoted by saying, "I mean it doesn't have any significance."

It worked. We are quoting him and discussing it. Do you really believe he was blind to the import of what he was saying - "it doesn't have any significance?"

The currency for celebrity of any kind are the people who watch and listen to them. If the forces who control the media control the people as well they control celebrity and who gets it. What Noam Chomsky has done is to equate the 9/11 Truth movement not with whether it happened as has been officially touted but with whether we care. Is who did it and why significant to you?

Because that is the crux of the matter - who really cares to make it important enough to act upon it.

The world is aghast. Not because it was impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to be the lone killer, not because prominent people within the American government may have had a hand in Kennedy's killing, but because government records on the Kennedy assasination were classified top secret for 75 years and the American people didn't march on Washington with ropes and burning torches to demand they be told the truth.

Noam Chomsky was right. Who really cares enough to not just flick the remote to the cartoons?

_________________Mike Gravel for President for the Unity of all States.

It is irrelevant just like he says. It is irrelevant because there is nothing you can do about it anyway except run off at the mouth, and that is not getting anything done at all.

I mean, this society cannot even hold local law enforcement to accountability for allowing 9-11 to proceed, but they think they can hold Washingtom cabals to it. Yeah right people. Keep dreaming. You better clean up your own back yards bfore you start going after the big boys.

After studying the JFK assassination for three years I have concluded the there is a reason this has been so covered up with by left-gatekeepers like chomsky. It is epistomological.

First let me admit that I was just looking for an excuse to type the word epistomological.

There.

Now what the hell am I talking about? For about twenty years i read books like Chomskys great ones on LA and South East asia. I was sure that SOONER OR LATER people would catch on and STOP BELIEVING THE CORPORATE MEDIA WHO LIED ABOUT THE DEATH SQUADS 1965 INDNESIAN GENOCIDE ET AL. not so

Then I realized "hey wait a minute I am a history major who reads more about this stuff than the average person"

The average person who has not read as much history and politics and media history GET A LITTLE HERE A LITTEL THERE A LITTLE POLAND OVER THERE There is not enough to DEVELOP A CRITICAL MASS OF KNOWLEDGE TO CHALLENGE THE CORPORATE NARATIVE ON ANY ONE AREA.

There are however some exceptions, such as JFK and 9/11. There is a danger here that the avererage citizen JUST MIGHT READ ENOUGH to develop a critical mass. That is why there must be media moats developed by left gatekeeping publications such as the CIA left magazine Encounter, which was aimed a left-liberal university educated types from 1950 -64.

These AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENLIGHTENMENT must be cut off by defining them as low status knowledge. Young history students must feel the implicit scorn of their betters before treading on this terra okeephenoekee!

These areas--JFK and 9/11 -- ARE SO DANGEROUS because they are important and inherently interesting enough to borad numbers that they just might lead to the realization that .........

THE CORPORATE MEDIA CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO NARRATE EVENTS TRUTHFULLY.

I call this LEARNING BY CORE SAMPLING--- and it is potentially dangerously democratic!

In learning about JFK you are NOT A simply learning about one guy. You are learning about a nexus of institutional relations at a point in the development of the Military -Industiral -Media Complex in which permanenent instittuions in our economy overwhelmed the ability of an elected official to make a difference one way or the other.

I have now come full circle from my earlier Chomsky and Cockburn believing days about Kennedy. They present an EXTREMELY distorted picture.

Much more importatnly is the truth about just how profoundly our society is corrupt-- including the narrative capacity of the media that has the power to narrate us into war with Iran tomorrow--that study of First the JFK presidency and then 9/11 can reveal

This is the reason we must read everything about the Cold War (Again I plug here James Carrolls House OF War) the JFK assass. and 9/11.

A core sampling of knowledge is,epitomologically, much more threatening to the elites, than the broad latterally arranged knowledge of hop and skip media criticism of Chomsky

Now IS IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS CORE SAMPELING MAY BE MISINTERPRETED INTO INACCURATE "CONSPIRACY THEORIES"? YES, ITS EVEN LIKELY. That is why 9/11 and JFK need to be investigated in as broad a public forum as possible.

That is exactly what the Corporate Media are paid to prevent-- mediated discussion about core events that could actually democratize knowledge of how our ever-increasingly Corporatized, compartmentalized society actually "works"

_________________The Kennedy Assassination is not about Kennedy
Many aspects of Cold War history run through it.
There is a good reason its become a "word" almost like "Oliver Stone"

You said a lot when you commented on the profound corruption in our society. It is so deep and encompassing that I have decided that the blame cannot be accurately placed with any particular group. It is a problem with human nature.

I suspect that a large percentage of good friends, neighbors, and family members would spy on one another AND turn one another in....if the compensation was sufficient or the threats imposing enough.

"I can hire half the workers to kill the other half."
Jay Gould

Yes....House of War does an excellent job of chronicling the rise of power of the military/industrial/media establishment though it hardly mentions the complicitness of the media.

I found it interesting that Carrol never mentions the globalists. Perhaps due to him being from an FBI family? Perhaps due to his kids? He continually asserts that presidents call all of the shots while neglecting that shots are called based on information from their advisers.

Yes....Kennedy did tell Americans to dig a nuclear bunker in their back yard. Which was based on dire warnings delivered by Kennedy's close advisers.

Carrol's DIA director father tried to get him to infiltrate the peace movement for the FBI. I wonder if that is what he did. Of course he denies it. I tend to believe his story though.

Have you read any of his other works Nathaniel? I am interested in Constantines Sword. I like his work but they seem to take a long time to read.

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson